Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Kubrick/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Stanley Kubrick

former fac

Well-written and accurate, so let's see how it does for a nomination. 68.45.26.39 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with a call to invoke the Snowball Clause in light of a short lead, a complete and utter lack of inline citations, and a cleanup tag in one section. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See history, the nom created this without moving an old candidacy, per the instructions. Not sure how best to fix this. --W.marsh 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Non-free images lack fair use rationale. Are the references numbered from a reason? I didn't see any references to the numbers from a quick scan. Pagra shtak 14:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As much as I'd love to have this featured, it contains plenty obvious problems — lack of references, external jumps, WP:MOS issues, fair-use violations, trivia, and POV. Try improving the article towards GA status first. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It won't even pass GA. I feel like a lot of articles on filmmakers it focuses too much on their films and not enough on who they are. Alientraveller 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, weak lead, some sections stray too far from the main topic. --Phoenix (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1a, 1c. Needs major work. WP:SNOW applies here, since I feel there's too much work to be done for this current nomination to be successful. LuciferMorgan 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose this FAC for the following reasons and I endorse the WP:SNOW as well - there is too much work to be done on this article (perhaps months) for it to pass right now.

1a - This article needs to be thoroughly copyedited.
1c - This article does not reference the major biographies on Kubrick (there have been several) or the scholarship on his films (there is a ton) - see WP:CITE and WP:RS. This is a significant problem. The editors should take a few weeks to do some research on Kubrick and then radically revise the page.
1d - The "Character" section may not exactly be POV, but its very existence suggests a POV. I would suggest integrating some of this material into the article in a more cohesive manner and deleting the rest.
2a - The lead is not a summary of the whole article. See WP:LEAD.
2b - I feel that the page is poorly organized with undue weight being given to "Character," "Religious views" and "Aspect ratio." Also the "Religion" and "Politics" sections have far too many quotations. Finally, there is a section on "Early life" but it is hard to find anything about the rest of his life and his death using the headings.
3 - Images do not have a fair use rationale - see WP:IUP.
4 - The article should focus on Kubrick with some discussion of his movies, but since all of these movies have extensive pages of their own, I feel that the page should slim down its discussion of the films themselves. This is a biography page. Perhaps sections on "Directorial style" and whatnot would be better. The "Quotes" section should be deleted as it is akin to "Trivia" (see WP:TRIVIA). Awadewit ^Talk 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per above, of course. But I also disagree with the suggestion that the section on his films should be cut down. I found it a very interesting overview of his work, and while articles on politicians normally focus on their political career primarily, articles on filmmakers should provide a comprehensive rundown of their cinematic work. Sloan21 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive is different than exhaustive. The place for a detailed analysis of each film is on the page for that film. That is why I suggested sections such as "directorial style" (and I will now add "Recurring themes" as another suggestion) so that the editors will have ample space to discuss Kubrick's work - which is of course what makes him notable in the first place. But some summary style WP:SS should be used here. It would not be good to set a precedent for discussing every major work of an artist on their biography page. It seems to me that the editors need to tell the story of Kubrick's artistic career using his films. It would of course be ideal if they could do that by integrating a discussion of the films into the biography. This is extremely hard to do, I know, but it is an ideal worth striving for - such a structure produces an extremely cohesive article. If the editors can neither describe Kubrick's artistic style nor integrate his film career into his biography, I suggest that they curtail the number of films included in the article. Sadly, there is simply not enough room for all of these; perhaps they could arrange them by genre? (By the way, I think that a better analogy to a filmmaker than a politician would be an author; in biographies on writers, editors must also debate how to present the artistic work as well.) Awadewit ^Talk 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Poor reference, virtually no fair use rationale in many of its pictures. The last four prose sections, starting with Character are unattractive masses of text; while they may contain useful info, first glance at those sections betray any appeal to read the clump. ALTON .ıl 04:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.